1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Introducing Mis: a Process of Directed Organizational Change
Ronen Bar-Nahor Chanoch Jacobsen
Faculty of Industrial Engineering & M: c/o Department of Sociology
Technion, I.LT., Haifa, Israel University of California
Tel: 04 861-072 Riverside, California 92521
Abstract
Despite the importance of computerized information systems, many MISs are left idle or used only
partially, having exceeded their budgets or time allocations. The basic problem is that critical
interactions between software engi users, and the ion have been neglected. The reason
for this neglect is the inter-disciplinary nature of the problem. There is a basic conflict of interests
between managers’ need for efficiency, Users’ desire for quality of working life, and software
quest for sophi:
We have developed an integrated theory of the detailed processes and transformed it into a System
Dynamics model. Running the model against three time series of data from one organization that has
introduced an MIS, we reproduced an average of 84% of the variances in the data. Our tentative
conclusion is that introducing MIS is a special case of directed organizational change that requires
cooperation between software engineers and OB experts.
Information Systems, page 1
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Introducing MIS: A Process of Directed Organizational Change
Introduction. Despite the importance attached to management information systems (MIS) in
organizations, many studies have found their implementation fraught with problems (Lucas 1975,
Kling 1980; Turner 1982). The term "software crisis" came into use in the 1970's as more and more
MIS's either stood idle or were only partially utilized, or were incompletely developed, or else overran
their budgets or time allocations (Gladden 1982). The main reason for these problems has been
identified. It is the ‘relative neglect of critical interactions between MIS's and their organizational
larly in the iti stages (Alter 1980; Lyytinen 1987). We attribute this
neglect to the following factors:
* The software experts who develop MIS are typically not acquainted with the theory and
research of organizational behavior.
* The p d by izations and MIS users require a research methodology
that integrates “individual psychology and organizational behavior with MIS. Such methodological
pluralism is rare in academe, leaving research segmented and short of empirical data (Lyytinen 1987).
* The difficulty of identifying relevant variables and defining them as independent, intervening
or dependent, leads to naive ions of practical p
* The conventional research = cross-sectional analyses of static samples makes monitoring
any process over time impossible. Thus there are no hard data about what happens in the process of
introducing an MIS into an organization.
We have d an i d theory to p the i jon process more
realistically. On the basis of that theory we then constructed a System Dynamics model to simulate
the process over time. Finally, we tested the model's behavior with empirical time-series of the
process as it actually d in an ization that has introduced an MIS.
Conceptualization. Introducing MIS involves interactions between three types of social actors: The
top managers who order the MIS and have to support its implementation, the technical experts who
are responsible for its development, and the individual users who have to work with it. The
characteristics of each of these impinge on how the other two relate to the change, and therefore affect
the whole process. Moreover, each side has a different focus of interest, and since these are likely to
conflict they will affect its response to the others’ legitimate concerns.
Management is typically concerned with effectiveness and efficiency of operations, and will
evaluate the MIS, the experts who develop it and the employees who have to use it by these criteria.
The software engineers, on the other hand, having little knowledge of organizational dynamics or
psychological problems, focus their efforts on technical solutions rather than on the organization's
problem. Finally, the employees who ultimately have to use the MIS are concerned with the quality
of their working life (QWL), and with the tensions that accompany any major change in their work
environment.
Thus when wants to i an MIS, employees’ fears can easily lead to
opposition and unwillingness to cooperate with the software experts. The experts' conception of a
sophisticated technical solution may run counter hep employees' current work habits, as well as endanger
middle * status positi P ions of the MIS can be either too optimistic
or too pessimistic - depending on their prior experience with computers.
On the other hand, each has legitimate expectations of help from the others. The engineers
expect from management that it give the necessary financial and manpower support, and from the users
that they make the effort to learn how to operate the system. Management expects from the software
experts to come up with solutions to their practical probl and from employees that they coop
with the experts to make the system work. Finally, employees expect the software engineers to solve
Information Systems, page 2
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
any problems they encounter while using the system, and from management to encourage and support
their learning efforts. The’ stage is thus set for a three-cornered conflict of legitimate interests, which
must be resolved in order to successfully introduce an MIS into the organization.
The process of introducing an MIS begins when management perceives a gap between the
current and the desired effectiveness or efficiency, a gap that cannot be overcome by normal work
procedures. The decision to change and the design of a strategy are typically affected by
's previous experi and the p conflicts of interests and power plays among
management, shareholders, internal lobbies, important customers, suppliers, and labor unions. Any
or all of these can influence the resources allocated to the change, the urgency with which it is
introduced, and the amount of patience shown with the almost inevitable initial lag in imp
(Samuel and Jacobsen 1989).
Once the preferred strategy has been decided on, the change must be incorporated into the
organization's internal system. Such a system contains five major elements: tasks, employees,
and proced! (Galbraith 1977). Introducing an MIS affects most of these,
and therefore means a comprehensive system change, not merely technological, but also political and
cultural (Tichy 1983).
All five izational el and the i ions between them must be considered in this
process, larly the employ who will ulti ly use the MIS. To minimize obstructions
(whether deliberate or not), employees must be involved in the decision making processes regarding
the MIS and its imp] ion. This calls for parti and support in order to build
a basis of trust from realistic expectations (Daft 1986; ” Camall 1986). Not only workers need
ideration and involvement, different levels are also interested to have a say and
influence decisions (Guthrie 1974), even if they typically do not want to invest the time and effort to
learn how to operate an MIS. If, however, the organization's problems are of a political nature,
involvement may exacerbate power struggles and retard the process (Tichy 1983; Nadler 1981).
An MIS has a number of characteristics that set it apart from other technological innovations.
First, the new technology (i.e., the software) is always untested because it has to be made to fit a
particular organization in a given situation. Therefore frequent changes in the software have to be
made after its introduction (Manna and Waldinger 1978; Schneidewind 1979). Second, much learning
is required from users before the MIS can reach its optimal usefulness. Third, an MIS tends to disturb
the hierarchy of authority in an organization, giving increased power to those familiar with its
operation. Fourth, to realize its maximal usefulness, an MIS depends on the data input from other
users, All these characteristics make it hazardous to infer from other technological changes directly
to the process of introducing MIS. A separate approach is required.
From the employees’ point of view, the introduction of an MIS has major impacts on the
quality of their working life. QWL is not just salary, working hours, physical conditions or similar
matters. More germane to this discussion are such intangibles as a desire for meaning and satisfaction
in work, for autonomy and influence, for chall and for ization (Bostrom
and Heinen 1977). Some examples of how these are affected follow.
An MIS affects empl diti ionalizi ‘k-p This can lead to
layoffs for some, and job enrichment for others sd adding to their tasks and areas of responsibility.
But, as the required work load and pace of operations increase, it also adds to work strain. MIS also
tends to increase the number and the level of required work skills. This can make work more varied
and thus more interesting, but it may also lead to de-skilling, ion and narrow iali
which have the opposite effect (Mumford and Whistler 1977).
Information Systems, page 3
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
In sum, the tional phase in any izational change process is critical, because in it workers
and managers must leave accustomed behavior patterns and adjust to a new situation. But a newly
introduced MIS especially so, because it affects many aspects of QWL, as well as the authority
structure, communication patterns, and control isms within the ization. It is the neglect
of these potential danger spots that is responsible for many of the problems encountered.
QUALITY OF MIS
\ 44
bade 2 UTILIZATION OF
WITH THE MIS)
+
‘TRAINING RESOURCES
\ PS. stains bekioate -_
USERS’
WORK LOAD
CHANGES IN
MIS SOFTWARE
HE MODEL. The population that is to work with the MIS is defined by five sequentially ordered
levels (Figure 2). When management decides to introduce the MIS 100% of the population are
candidates [CANDIDS]. Some of these will immediately accept the change [ACCEPT], others will
oppose it [OPPOSE]. Some of the accepters will in time get sufficient training to become active
operators [ACTIVE], and some of these [ELITE] will enthusiastically work with the system. But there
is always the possibility of movement back and forth between these categories, as defined by the rates.
These nine rates of i between the populati ies are affected by 21 auxiliaries
(one of which, FUNCT TON. has been made a level 0 avoid simul ions), five
variables, and 8 i (The. and code is avai from the
authors).
Data for testing the model come from the records of a large Government agency that had
introduced an MIS in the last few years. Three time series of 30 data points each, recorded at two-
weekly intervals were obtained. DATA1 is the percentage of employees who are in one or other of
the levels beyond CANDIDS. We have called these the USERS, defining: USERS = 100 -
CANDIDS. DATA2 are those who should be using the MIS but do so for less than 25% of the
planned functions. This corresponds to the level OPPOSE. DATA3 is the percent of the employees’
operations that have been changed as a result of the MIS. These data correspond to the level
Information Systems, page 4
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
FUNCTION in the model.
To initialize the model three persons who had been involved with the project estimated a reasonable
range for each parameter. Within these estimated ranges we then chose the actual initial values that
gave the best reproductions of the data trends (Figure 3). A summary measure of fit, the Trend Index
(TD, is the percent of data variance reproduced by the model variable (Theil 1966). The TI value for
DATAI was 79.3%, for DATA2 it was 81.0%, and 91.7% for DATA3. The mean TI for the three
data sets is 83.99%.
The model's sensitivity to the esti initial p was tested by ically varying
the initial values up and down until TI < 70%. Table 1 shows that, except for ICLIMAT (the
probability of readiness for MIS). the model is robust and not sensitive to the precise initial values we
have chosen. The sensitivity of ICLIMAT indicates the importance of a favorable climate in the
organization's culture for introducing an MIS.
Information Systems, page 5
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
en
4
\
Tele
=P
Table 1. RESULTS OF SENSITIVTY, TESTS OF INITIAL VALUES
on
ote estat a oR,
VARIABLE LOWER ASSUMED UPPER RANGE
& SCALE LIMIT VALUE LIMIT
CHOICE (prob) 0.45 0.65 0.80 0.35
MEAN TI 79.8 84.0 80.8
INNOVTR (%) 1 7 25 24
MEAN TI 83.5 84.0 78.5
INEEDFIT (%) 45 55 85 40
MEAN TI 80.7 84.0 75.4
WORKLOAD (prob) 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.50
MEAN TI 76.7 84.0 77.1
ICLIMAT (prob) 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.10
MEAN TI 76.5 84.0 78.3
ICOMMIT (prob) 0.60 0.70 1.00 0.40
MEAN TI 81.5 84.0 79:05
ICOMPLEX (index) 1.00 1.50 1.90 0.90
MEAN TI 74.5 84.0 80.6
MULTACCP (%) 30.0 40.0 47.5 17.5
MEAN TI 76.0 84.0 74.3
. Two model variables measure the degree to which the MIS was. successfully introduced.
FUNCTION, the percent of planned MIS ions in di the scope of impl
USAGE is the population percent who are actually using the MIS.
Information Systems, page 6
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
a 1, 28, \.
TM
ETGURE 4
‘MODEL OUTPUT FOR USAGE AND FUNCTION
Figure 4 shows that at first USAGE dropped drastically, due to the fact that the first users were those
who had been actively involved in the design and development of the MIS and had realistic
expectations. The additional users had not been so involved and thus were more affected by
ICLIMAT. As they joined the process, therefore, total USAGE fell. Management responded by
lowering the initially planned scope, and by raising i in i » and
training resources. These steps reversed the negative trend, so that after 30 two-week periods USAGE.
reached 67% (implying of course, that 33% of those who were designated to use the MIS had not yet
done so after more than a year).
Conclusion. This study was designed to develop and test a realistic model of the process of
introducing MIS into an organization. Findings indicate a good fit of model behavior to the empirical
data. Our tentative conclusion is that the process is a special case of directed organizational change,
and therefore basically an inter-disciplinary one. However, this conclusion is still tentative because
more research is needed to apply both theory and model to other organizations undergoing the same
process.
References
Alter, S. 1980. Decision Support Systems: Current Practice and
Continuing Challenges. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bostrom, R.P., and Heinen, S.J. 1977. "MIS Problems and Failures:
A Socio-Technical Perspective." M/S Quarterly (Sept):17-32.
Carnall, C.A. 1986. "M i ic Change: An Integrated
Approach." Long Range Planning: 105-115.
Daft, R.L. 1986. Organization Theory and Design. St.Paul, MN: West.
Galbraith, J.R. 1977. Organization Design. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Gladden, G.R. 1982. "Stop the life-cycle, I want to get off."
ACM SIGSOFT Engineering Notes 7(2):35-39.
Guthrie, A. 1974. “Attitudes of User-M: Towards
Information Systems." Management Informatics, 3(5):221-232.
Information Systems, page 7
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Kling, R. 1980. "Social Analyses of Computing: Tt ical
Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research." ACM Computer Surveys
12(1), March.
Lucas, H.C. 1975. Why Information Systems Fail. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Lyytinen, K. 1987. “Different Perspectives on Information Systems:
Problem and Solutions." ACM Computer Surveys (March).
Manna Z., and Waldinger, R. 1978. "The Logic of Computer Program-
ming." IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-4:199-229.
Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R.A., Fi G., and Wood-Harper,
AT. (Eds). 1985. Research Methods in Information Systems.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Nadler, D.A. 1981. "Managing Organizational Change: An Integrative
Perspective." J. of Applied Behavioral Science:191-211.
Samuel Y., and Jacobsen, C. 1989. "Planned Organizational Change:
Theory, Model, and Data." In Computer-Based Management of Complex
Systems. P. Milling and E. Zahn (eds.). Berlin: Springer.
Schneidewind, N.F., and Hoffman, H.M. 1979. "An Experiment in
Software Error Data Collection and Analysis." [EEE Transactions
on Software Engineering SE-5:276-286.
Tichy, N.M. 1983. Managing Strategic Change: Technical, Political,
and Cultural Dynamics. New York: Wiley.
Turner, J.A. 1982. “Observations on the Use of Behavioral Models
in Information Systems Research and Practice."
Information Management 5(3): 207-213.
Information Systems, page 8
